Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ex. Head Constable Mukesh Giri vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Others on 24 November, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Review Application No.399 of 2011 in Original Application No.3746 of 2011 This the 24th day of November, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Ex. Head Constable Mukesh Giri Applicant Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & others Respondents O R D E R (IN CIRCULATION) Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
OA No.3746/2011 was dismissed vide a speaking order, even though in limine. The facts as mentioned in the order would reveal that the applicant, a Head Constable in Delhi Police, not only remained absent for a long time without any justifiable cause, but on earlier 81 occasions as well he had remained unauthorizedly absent. All that has been pleaded in support of the review application is that one of the pleas raised was that establishing complete unfitness of the applicant from service was the requirement of the statutory rules, and once such a finding was not given by the respondents, the impugned order had to be set aside. It is pleaded that the said point was urged, but has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. We would not go into the issue as it may not be possible for us to remember whether the said point had been raised. We may only mention that arguments in the OA were heard on 18.10.2011 and the judgment was pronounced on 20.10.2011, and there may not be any chance for the Tribunal to have missed out on any point that may have been urged during the course of hearing. The point as mentioned above, has, however, been taken in the OA. We are rather surprised to see as to how an employee in a disciplined force can be said not to be completely unfit to be retained in service if he had remained absent for a long time, right from 31.01.2008 up to the date the order dismissing him from service came to be passed, and when he had remained absent on 81 earlier occasions, for which he had been awarded major and minor penalties as well. In the impugned order, after noticing the facts of the case, the disciplinary authority had held that the applicant was unfit for police service. The appellate authority has mentioned that the applicant had been awarded four censures and one major penalty, and was a habitual absentee and remained unauthorizedly absent with effect from 31.01.2008 to 04.08.2009, i.e., till the date of dismissal from service, and further that his past record would show habitual absenteeism on 81 different occasions. If the word completely has not been prefixed with unfit, but otherwise no other conclusion is possible, the mere fact that the said word, i.e., completely has not been mentioned in the orders would not invalidate the impugned orders.
2. Finding no merit in this review application, we dismiss the same in circulation.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/